Voter photo IDs

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

The issue of whether or not to require photo IDs for voters in Missouri was making news again earlier this month. In testimony before the Rules Committee in the U.S. Senate, the state's senior senator, Christopher Bond, and Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan were on opposite sides.

Carnahan contends that the kind of voter fraud that would be stymied by requiring photo IDs is so rare in Missouri that there is little reason for requiring the IDs. In addition, she worries that some voters who would find it difficult to obtain photo IDs wouldn't be able to vote. In striking down a legislature-approved photo-ID requirement in 2006, the Missouri Supreme Court estimated that as many as 240,000 Missourians might be disenfranchised.

The assertion that some voters wouldn't be able to get photo IDS and wouldn't be able to vote has some holes. Voters are required to register before they can vote. Some might argue that it's just as difficult to register as it is to get a photo ID to vote. Also, Missourians, like motorists everyone in the U.S., must pass driving exams and obtain a driver's license before they can legally operate motor vehicles. Some might argue that it's just as difficult to get a driver's license as it is to get a photo ID to vote.

Those arguments aside, no one can refute the fact that voter fraud occurs in Missouri, particularly in urban areas where record-keeping sometimes leaves something to be desired. Voter IDs would help keep dead Missourians from registering and voting, as has happened in some precincts in St. Louis.

There may be no perfect solution for guaranteeing fair and honest elections, but requiring photo IDs for voters is a step that removes some of the opportunity for fraud.

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

The rules of the recent Republican caucuses required a photo-ID. Unknown people showed up who could not be identified by a County Clerk's voter registration alone. As a poll worker in a small precinct, many General Election voters show up who are unknown to the Clerks and Judges. An official photo with address is needed to pair the person with the Clerk's registration name and address list by Wards and Townships.

One known difficulty with the photo-ID is that some of the local Amish and Mennonite community are selling out and moving back to Arkansas were the photo-ID is not required. These are good people who have a given belief against having a photo taken.

-- Posted by hehall on Tue, Mar 25, 2008, at 10:22 AM

Good article, and as always, good arguments for voter ID pictures. The idea of disenfranchising certain voters is a poor excuse to continue allowing the voter fraud that occurs especially in presidential elections, and especially in certain areas.

It is rather ludicrous to believe that many (if any) Amish are moving out-of-state just because of such a potential law, nor would they pull up roots if it actually became a law.

-- Posted by gurusmom on Tue, Mar 25, 2008, at 1:53 PM

I do not believe that it is unreasonable to require someone to prove they are who they say they are in order to vote. Should we also be concerned that Muslims might be disenfranchised if they wish to present a picture ID wearing a veil or Burka? I have worked in areas where voter fraud was a way of life and something needs to be done to stop such abuses.